dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
164
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

2 edits

2 recommendations

silbaco

Premium Member

Muni

I think people underestimate the costs of munis. Sure, they will usually offer great customer service. The connections are usually unthrottled, unlimited, uncongested (peering points). The fiber ones usually offer speeds way beyond that of the incumbents. But do they actually save people money?

A quick look at the websites of some cable munis seems to say no. In fact the price per Mbps is often times way above what most people here complain about from incumbents. That doesn't include the cost of building and maintaining the network they have paid and may continue to pay through taxes. And many are clearly out of date, some maxing out at 15 Mbps. Fiber munis are still young. Some offer great speeds for the money. But it seems many are priced similarly to incumbents just to get the service, again excluding the money people have to pay through taxes and other means.

You don't just build a network and then never pay a dime from there on out. That network has to be maintained and upgraded. There are employees to pay to handle all aspects of the muni. Equipment to purchased and maintained. Etc. It should be no surprise that some of the most commonly known success stories and competitive munis cover populations of 100k+ and have access to serious cash.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

3 recommendations

Nanaki (banned)

Member

You are forgetting that fiber to the home also means fiber to the store front. Fibered up cities are very attractive to many different types of shops. Internet cafes being one of them. Mid range hotels for another. Any person who travels allot for work may have their company bypass a city with only cable and dsl providers in-favor of one where the hotel has fiber based internet. So now you get business men coming to your town to stay at hotels in your town. This means while they stay they will buy food and hard goods in your town as well. Some may also move to your town at some point. Also computer shops that do repairs and things like virus and spyware clean up will also find your town attractive. Meaning more tax money comes in to your town.

At least that is the hope they have. Will it pay off every time not hardly. But they also know that when it does pay off it can pay off in big ways. So the risk to a town vs payoff is low. They can always scrap it if it starts bleeding money and it becomes a failed experiment. The customers will have enjoyed it while it lasted and the infrastructure is already there (if possibly poorly maintained) for a regular isp to simply repair and upgrade vs having to do new runs they can just reuse and or repair what is there.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

elefante72 to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
+1 I agree, I believe there is a threshold of POPs needed to scale properly to be able to be priced competitively.

They could use metro-e to keep costs low and provide "future proofing".

I think that co-ops should be formed to reach enough scale regionally so that these can be successful sort of like how they wired America for power when early on the electrical companies "surprise" thought is was too much to wire those homes.

What is crappy, is that incumbents block or attempt to block these over "risk" or capital reasons. Hey running a business is risky and when you don't compete, you should lose. I get it (enjoy a monopoly), but there comes a point when the community has rights to self-determination also.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 recommendation

elray to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:
I think people underestimate the costs of munis. Sure, they will usually offer great customer service. The connections are usually unthrottled, unlimited, uncongested (peering points). The fiber ones usually offer speeds way beyond that of the incumbents. But do they actually save people money?

Great customer service?

I've been trying to reach customer service for one of our local municipal operations for over a week.

Do they save money?
Sure, when the capital costs are assigned to the homeowners via property tax, and the muni can subsidize the monthly cost by overcharging electric ratepayers, end-users will claim they save money.
said by silbaco:
A quick look at the websites of some cable munis seems to say no. In fact the price per Mbps is often times way above what most people here complain about from incumbents. That doesn't include the cost of building and maintaining the network they have paid and may continue to pay through taxes. And many are clearly out of date, some maxing out at 15 Mbps. Fiber munis are still young. Some offer great speeds for the money. But it seems many are priced similarly to incumbents just to get the service, again excluding the money people have to pay through taxes and other means.

Indeed, if you browse muni rate sheets, you'll see that they don't offer better rates over cable-tv, and typically, they aren't offering entry-level internet rates on par with commercial operators, all the while, operating at public subsidy.
said by silbaco:
You don't just build a network and then never pay a dime from there on out. That network has to be maintained and upgraded. There are employees to pay to handle all aspects of the muni. Equipment to purchased and maintained. Etc. It should be no surprise that some of the most commonly known success stories and competitive munis cover populations of 100k+ and have access to serious cash.

And those employees are murkily cross-subsidized by water and power ratepayers.

Imagine, in Los Angeles, the DWP operating a muni fiber network. Sure, we'd have free "LifeLine" service for the 80% on school lunch programs, while the rest of us would be surcharged, and it would be maintained like the water main that flooded UCLA two weeks hence. The pay-tv network would be bundled, and we'd be forced pay for foreign-language channels.

Nonetheless, it would be championed by the MSM and the government-dependent class as a "success" story, while property owners will have the double insult of not wanting the service, not having the service, but being taxed twice to pay for it.

v6movement
@135.23.225.x

4 recommendations

v6movement to silbaco

Anon

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

I think people underestimate the costs of munis. Sure, they will usually offer great customer service. The connections are usually unthrottled, unlimited, uncongested (peering points). The fiber ones usually offer speeds way beyond that of the incumbents. But do they actually save people money?

If I was stuck in area like these people are with no (even remotely decent) options for Internet access I couldn't care less if I was saving any money or not. I applaud these people for providing for themselves when stuck in a "have not" zone for Internet access.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
Those maxed out 15Mbps deployments lead me to think in a different way. A GPON 1.2 Gbps link connected to a 80 port splitter? 15Mbps symmetrical for all subscribers may be the only service offered.
I read about a town that used a 128? split on GPON to offer 10Mbps symmetrical. That was the only offering, no other tiers available. So, you get less of the "up to" 200Mbps offerings that could not be supported if 100 customers had that tier and used it simultaneously.
AmericanMan
Premium Member
join:2013-12-28
united state

1 recommendation

AmericanMan to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

And many are clearly out of date, some maxing out at 15 Mbps.

15 Mbps is infinitely greater than the 0 Mbps that the incumbents won't offer.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

populations of 100k+ and have access to serious DEBT

$300x20= $6kx 100k homes/taxpayers = 600 million US$
and that's their first, highly optimistic, geustimate of your tax payment. the really costs are higher as using part of bonding authority, Other lending, like schools and utilities and other Necssary borrowing may end up costing more to fund due the % of debt.
and if you intend to build NOW, you and the rest of the taxpayer are actually taking out a loan for 600 million US$ at whatever the bond floats at.
DeLiver3
Premium Member
join:2004-09-01
Cincinnatus, NY
Actiontec F2250
(Software) pfSense

4 recommendations

DeLiver3 to elray

Premium Member

to elray
I thought we were talking about Leverett, Massachusetts not LA. Look at a map. No municipal sewer, water, or electric. Neither Comcast or Verizon (from the linked article) is providing their customers needs. The voters have spoken and think $25/mo is worth it to overbuild the incumbents. They'll be paying it - not you.

I applaud these communities for the courage to take on these projects.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

Flyonthewall to AmericanMan

Anon

to AmericanMan
Or the 1-3 mbps that they do.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
Still would be nice to have it when it doesn't exist now.
KrK

1 recommendation

KrK to DeLiver3

Premium Member

to DeLiver3
You have to excuse elray. He has a list of talking points.

Gain of salt, as they say.

bluefox8
join:2014-08-20

1 edit

1 recommendation

bluefox8 to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
6k per household/business might seem like a lot. Especially to those who are already on broadband. But can you imagine being in their shoes? They do not have DSL. They are on dial-up. Despite numerous letters to corporations begging them to wire their town. Can you imagine being on dial-up in 2014? Imagine the impact it has on their businesses, schools, and homes.

To make the situation more desperate, there is no other foreseeable path to broadband in the future. So the real choice essentially is between:
a) Pay it now and get it wired
b) Pay in 20 years and get it wired

Regarding the cost, 6k on a 250k home is about 2.5%. How many of us would not pay a 2.5% premium on the same home if it meant the difference between broadband versus dialup?

For fun math, let's see if savings from using dialup over the last 15 years can help pay for this cost? Assuming dialup costs $20/month and broadband costs $50/month, each household saved about $5,400 over the last 15 years. I think they can afford this deal.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
No they don't save money in general. But since it's a Muni project the rest is left as a moot topic. Especially the ones that claim that more businesses will move. I have yet to see any numbers or true artciles that show any area that has 1gig services by Muni FTTH are seeing an increase in businesses moving there. And if it was the case, why is BoA moving more offices to Charlotte??? They don't have FTTH by their city, but BoA turned it into the 2nd largest banking center in the country, and even NASCAR and many other major companies have HQs there- and still don't need the FTTH.

Well UTOPIA covers well over 100k people, but they don't have crap either in terms of a solid network that keeps going. It's not even fully paid for after all these years.
ITGeeks

ITGeeks to Nanaki

Member

to Nanaki
Define Internet Café??? Sweepstakes centers???? And store fronts??? hardly. Many of those are powered via cable and xDSL and always will be. Most companies that are major companies have a set vender they use and will always use. They just won't connect to the local FTTH provider for the city. Hell- even the LEGO Brand Retail stores in the US are using MegaPath and has their entire network connected to their HQ in Denmark.- and yes I know this by working for them.
ITGeeks

ITGeeks to DeLiver3

Member

to DeLiver3
It doesn't matter who the city is. It shows that this can NOT be pulled off in terms of what the scope is. Who is going to pay for these new employees to be trained??? Trucks??? equipment to splice the fiber??? These poor citizens are on the hook for more than what they are counting. Poor saps.
ITGeeks

ITGeeks to v6movement

Member

to v6movement
And you'd be one of the first to complain about paying more. And the average person would NOT pay higher prices regardless on who the provider is and how it comes to them. People shop on PRICE not by technology and could careless if their properties are on the line from these crazy bonds that are being issued- which should be illegal.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned) to ITGeeks

Member

to ITGeeks
Internet cafes use what is available. And if muni fiber is avail that is what they will use. You think they only service areas with say att dsl or twc cable? No they use what ever is there that is cheap and fast.

The one starbucks here has a dedicated line not from att or twc not sure who supplies it. As when i connect there and come here or what ever it does not resolve to any one and remains a raw ip. And as i did not really care one way or the other i did not bother to check further. But both att and twc always resolve to a neo rr or att domain on speed test. It is also about 20 meg down and 18 up. again pointing to dedicated line.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to bluefox8

Member

to bluefox8
Private companies are not there to be forced to service you. They are allowed to decide who they service. And letters? Hardly will get read. And making a big deal about being serviced??? That won't get anything but you can bet VZ will be going to the state and feds to get this blocked of 600mill when there is nothing to back it but property taxes.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

6 recommendations

Nanaki (banned) to ITGeeks

Member

to ITGeeks
You know honestly the way you talk you sound like your a twc att Comcast etc exec who is afraid of having his toes stepped on by the munis.

bluefox8
join:2014-08-20

bluefox8 to ITGeeks

Member

to ITGeeks
said by ITGeeks:

Private companies are not there to be forced to service you.

Where did I make any claims about forcing companies?

It's funny when you make up an imaginary claim, which you then try to refute.
bluefox8

1 edit

bluefox8 to ITGeeks

Member

to ITGeeks
said by ITGeeks:

No they don't save money in general.

Whose money??

1) End user's money: 1GB symmetrical at EPB is $70/mo (in an underserved area). I pay verizon $85/mo for 50mbps symmetrical (in a major city). Not to mention netflix slowdowns on verizon's intentionally congested network.

2) Public's money: remember that corporations took billions of taxpayer dollars to build nationwide fiber optic network which they never did. Most municipal broadband networks, on the other hand, built a well functioning net-neutral network with reasonable rates and still making profit. They are even encouraging FCC to remove corporate-sponsored legislative barriers to give them permission to expand and serve more customers.
said by ITGeeks:

I have yet to see any numbers or true artciles that show any area that has 1gig services by Muni FTTH are seeing an increase in businesses moving there. And if it was the case, why is BoA moving more offices to Charlotte???

Why doesn't the silicon valley move to florida with no state income tax? Because big decisions are multi-factorial.

Statistically, cities like Chatanooga and Wilson NC are reporting overall increase in high-tech businesses since they started offering their services.
said by ITGeeks:

Well UTOPIA covers well over 100k people, but they don't have crap either in terms of a solid network that keeps going. It's not even fully paid for after all these years.

Corporations fail everyday too. That's why you look at the big picture. Statistically, municipal networks have done well for themselves and the community.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski to elray

Premium Member

to elray
So basically these towns are supposed to just suck it up and enjoy satellite service? Please.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned)

Member

yeh satellite service other than when it rains or a cloud moves across the sky or the wind blows to hard and jiggles your dish. I had direct tv for 6 months and all the above was what happened. Lost signal in a sprinkle no service in the winter had to clean off the dish and if i was very lucky i would get spotty service. Clouds wind snow rain all killed the service. The same is true for internet sat services.

People can talk about their great hd picture and service with direct tv all they like. One their tv likely can not even display the full quality hd that direct tv in perfect conditions can give two they probably would not notice the difference if i changed the channel to a non hd version when they had their backs turned three i know better about the other nonsense of little to no downtime compared to cable.

I had direct tv and many people i know also did we all had the same crappy signal and lost signal all the time. At one point there were no less than 30 on my street who got direct tv during one great price promotion. Next thing you know there was no shortage of direct tv dishes sitting curb side for me to re-purpose to high gain wifi antennas. I ended up making up the rigs and selling them for 15 a pop in front of my house sold em all as well about 20 total.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to bluefox8

Premium Member

to bluefox8
said by bluefox8:

For fun math, let's see if savings from using dialup over the last 15 years can help pay for this cost? Assuming dialup costs $20/month and broadband costs $50/month, each household saved about $5,400 over the last 15 years. I think they can afford this deal.

So you're saying COMMIT to at least $6000 more in taxes to save $5400 on additional broadband payments?
suppose you are in the 17% that voted NO! maybe because you can barely pay the current mortgage, taxes and maintaince?

Where is it in the public interest to price seniors or others on fixed incomes out of their homes? or force them to buy FTTH for you while they get/can afford none and may forgo food or medicine to pay those extra taxes?

What would/could a cableco or Telco offer if YOU agreed to finance the first $600million? (really $2-300 million in cash plus debt service for 20 years) with the same (google like)restrictions on public fees, payments, and extras that make it even more expensive to build?
What restrictions do these towns have that are so scary that NO cable/ Telco/ overbuilder is willing to touch them?
If profit is possible, SOMEONE would be building it already.

Why don't the well-heeled in town join together to build a privately held not for profit/co-op?
Then there is NO risk to the public and those that have faith/really see a broadband advantage can buy MORE shares and see (perhaps) a modest return.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski to Nanaki

Premium Member

to Nanaki
I actually have DirecTV and it rarely goes out. I was speaking more about satellite internet.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to KrK

Premium Member

to KrK
That is true.

bluefox8
join:2014-08-20

1 recommendation

bluefox8 to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
Generally, in a democracy you never get 100% agreement on any issue. But it is acceptable that majority vote gets to go forward.

But if you have a problem with a majority of citizens voting to raising taxes on themselves to receive services, then you essentially have an issue with democratic form of government. You are welcome to move to another country where people do not have the ability to do that.

Regarding senior citizens, it's important to remember that there was no opposition from any major senior citizen group around the vote.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned) to ptrowski

Member

to ptrowski
Same deal really. And i have heard the whole rarely goes out from so many people online etc. And honestly i just do not believe it. To me rarely is next to never. As in once every couple years for a few minutes. I was my self a twc cable customer for 10 years my parents had it for 20 years before that or dang close. And other than maybe 3 times we never had even 5 minutes of service loss. once was a storm that took down a tree and broke the lines for every thing. Another was a trash truck semi truck going down the road with a way to long cb whip antenna that cut our line. The 3rd time was again line break related att damaged the coax when working on the phone box outside our house.

In each case twc was out same day or next day to fix the mess. Next day was the time with the tree. The storm wrecked loads of poles and cost twc allot of equipment from trees falling on it all etc. so for me 30 years and 3 outages is rare total downtime about 36 hours grand total and only about 15 hours that had any effect on our viewing pleasure in the least.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

I can only talk from my experience. We did have a tree start to block the signal so we went back to our local small cable company. Worst move ever. Hardly any HD, horrible guide and it cost more. So we paid to have the tree removed and called DirecTV back the minute it was down. To each their own though.